Islamic View of the Coming/Return of Jesus

By:Dr. Ahmad Shafaat

(May 2003)

The Jewish tradition, as is well known, contains expectations of a
figure called the Messiah, who in Christian tradition is identified
with Jesus. For the Jews, this figure is yet to come but even in
Christianity the Messiah, although he came two thousand years ago in
the person of Jesus, will accomplish his expected work in a future
time upon his return. Thus the expectation of a future activity of
the Messiah is common to Judaism and Christianity. In this article I
discuss Islamic view of this expectation. As always, any discussion
about Islam needs to be done at two levels: 1) in the light of the
teaching of the Prophet as contained in the Qur`an and authentic
ahadith and 2) in the light of other Muslim traditions.

The Idea of the Messiah

The expectations about the Messiah are so varied that it seems
impossible to construct a coherent picture that can be realized in
real time. No wonder then that in Christianity the Messiah comes
only to go away without fulfilling his main role.

For the purpose of this article it is convenient to divide the views
about the Messiah as follows:

The word “messiah” means “anointed one” and refers to the practice
of anointing individuals for a divinely ordained role such as a king1
or a priest2
or a prophet3
and gives three pictures of the expected Messiah.

The Messiah is a king of David’s line (King-Messiah) who will
restore the Davidic kingdom that ceased to exist centuries ago,
expanding its rule to many other nations, if not the whole world.

He is a priest of Levi’s or Aaron’s line or Melchizedek’s order
(Priest-Messiah) who will restore a perfect worship. Connected
with this is the expectation of the rebuilding of the Jerusalem
temple.

He is a prophet of Moses’ type (Prophet-Messiah, usually called
simply the Prophet) who will lead the people of Israel to
redemption as Moses did long time ago.

Sometimes the Messiah can be a king, priest, and prophet all at once
but in some brands of Judaism more than one Messiah is expected to
perform the three roles. Thus the Dead Sea Scrolls expect two
Messiahs, a king and a priest, and one Prophet. The New Testament
also knows of the expectations of three messianic figures, but it
merges them all into a single figure that is identified with Jesus.
But the New Testament evidence is far from clear whether Jesus
himself thought of his role in terms of a Messiah in any sense4.

At first, the Christians expected Jesus to return very soon after
his departure (within the lifetime of the first Christian
generation) to perform his messianic roles, but when the expectation
was not fulfilled, a “realized eschatology” was devised which
believed that in some way Jesus had already done his work of
salvation during his first coming. At the same time belief in the
second coming continued in Christianity, frequently producing groups
excited by the prospect of Jesus’ return.

It is also interesting that in Pauline and Gentile Christianity some
of the expectations connected with the Messiah are retained but the
term “Messiah” itself is emptied of its contents so that “Christ” (latinized
Greek equivalent of “Messiah”) became a mere name. Already in Paul’s
writings “Christ” is nothing more than a name5.

As for Islamic sources, they do not mention a King-Messiah who
restores the kingdom of David or a Priest-Messiah who restores the
temple rites. Not only the Qur`an does not mention the King-Messiah
or the Priest-Messiah, but it also does not give much importance to
the institutions of kingship and priesthood. The really important
figures in the Qur`an are prophets (ambiya`) and messengers (rusul)
not kings or priests. Even when the Qur`an talks about the two
greatest Jewish kings, David and Solomon, it does not stress their
kingship. David is probably presented in 17:55 as a prophet who was
given a book (zabur, or Psalms) and in case of both
David and Solomon it is their wisdom and spirituality that is
prominent in the Qur`an rather than their kingship.

The primacy of the Prophet/Messenger means the primacy of knowledge
and revelation. It is a recognition that human beings need a message
from God for their spiritual and moral development. Institutions
such as kingship and priesthood are of secondary importance, if at
all.

Jesus is called al-masih (Messiah) both in the
Qur`an and the Hadith but the term is used as a name: in 3:45 the
Qur`an explicitly makes al-masih a part of the
name of Jesus: Mary is given glad tidings of a son “whose name
is al-masih,Jesus son of Mary”. This
corresponds exactly to the usage of “Christ” in much of the
Christian tradition. Beyond the use of the name al-masih
the Qur`an and the Hadith do not link Jesus with early messianic
expectations. He is not given any of the functions of the kingly or
priestly Messiah. Some ahadith present him as a just ruler bringing
extraordinary prosperity during his second coming, but there is no
indication that this is meant in any traditional messianic sense. He
is never called a king or son of David or otherwise associated with
the establishment or restoration of the Israeli kingdom. Nor is he
presented as a priest of the end-time, as in some New Testament
books. Moreover, while the Gospels go to great lengths to show that
Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecies, the Qur`an and the Hadith
do not even state in anything like a clear way that the coming of
Jesus was in fulfillment of earlier prophecies6.
Such a statement would have provided a strong basis to view Jesus as
a messianic figure in some traditional sense7.

Earlier Biblical prophecies are recognized in the Qur`an but mostly
as predictions of the coming of a prophet and the victory of truth
and righteousness. This is somewhat similar to the fact that the
Torah does not talk about the coming of the Messiah but it does talk
about the coming of a prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15-19).

Interestingly, it is the Prophet Muhammad who is said by the Qur`an
and the Hadith, in the clearest terms, to be prophesied in the Torah
and the Gospels (Qur`an 7:157, 17:107-108, 61:6; Mishkat al-Masabih,
26/18/1, 26/18/2, and 26/20/3 in James Robson’s translation).
Therefore, in the light of the Qur`an and the Hadith, the figure
that comes closest to fulfilling earlier messianic or eschatological
prophecies and thus being a messianic figure is the Prophet
Muhammad. The belief in Muhammad as the last prophet also
gives him an eschatological or messianic character. Thus if
Islamic sources provide any positive basis for affirming any type of
Messiah, it is the Prophet-Messiah, and he should be identified with
the Prophet Muhammad. But in the Qur`an and Hadith there is no
insistence that the Prophet Muhammad is the only messianic figure
and so it is possible to accept more than one Prophet-Messiah.
Therefore in view of the use of al-masih as a
name of Jesus in the Qur`an and the Hadith, absence in them of any
kingly or priestly role for him, and their presentation of him as a
prophet and a messenger of God we can regard him as a second
Prophet-Messiah if we are so inclined for some reason. Indeed, it
will be at least consistent with the Qur`an to talk of three
Prophet-Messiahs, the third being Yahya or John the Baptist8.

The Return of Jesus

We now look at the belief in the return of Jesus in the light of the
teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (the Qur`an and authentic ahadith)
and the Muslim traditions.

THE QUR`AN

The Qur`an has no clear reference to the return of Jesus. An
implicit reference is seen by some in two verses.

1) In Surah 43 we find passages about Abraham, Moses, and
Jesus in that order. In the passage about Jesus it is said:

wa inna hu la ‘ilm al-sa‘ah, “surely he is (a
means) of knowledge for the hour”.

In opinions attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas, Mujahid, ‘Ikramah, Qatadah,
Suddi, Dahhak, Abu al-‘Aliah and Abu Malik this
is understood to refer to Jesus’ return before the Hour as its sign:
he is a means for the knowledge for the Hour in the sense that upon
his return people will know that the Hour is surely coming. To
support this interpretation some have read ‘alam (sign)
instead of ‘ilm (knowledge). A related shi‘ah interpretation,
also held by some sunnis under shi‘ah influence is that the verse
refers to the coming of al-Mahdi, who may or may not be identified
with Jesus (Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, al-Sawa`iq al-Muhriqah).

But the interpretation that sees in the verse a reference to the
return of Jesus or the coming/return of al-Mahdi is only one of
several interpretations. Thus some early authorities, e.g. Hasan
Basari and Sa‘id bin Jubayr take hu (which could mean
“he” or “it”) to refer to the Qur`an. That is: the Qur`an is the
source of knowledge for the Hour.

Still others interpret the verse as a reference to Jesus’ miracles –
virgin birth, raising the dead – which show that resurrection is a
real possibility.

A fourth possible interpretation is that Jesus is a means of
knowledge for the hour in its very simple sense that he taught
belief in the hour, giving it a very important place in his
preaching and spreading this belief in the world more successfully
than any other prophet or teacher before him. His teaching, as
summarized in Mark 1:14 and Matthew (4:17), centers around the
proclamation: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near”.
When the disciples are sent on a mission, they too preach the same
message (Matthew 10:7, Mark 6:12, Luke 10:9). And before the end of
his ministry he talks at length about the hour and its signs
(Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, John 14-17). As a result the belief
in the hour became a firm and central element in Christianity,
through which it spread far and wide.

This fourth interpretation is preferable because it simply builds on
the words “knowledge for the Hour” without importing references that
are not found in the verse or anywhere else in the Qur`an. In the
time of the Qur`anic revelation it was probably widely known that
the belief in the hour had a very prominent position in the religion
founded by Jesus.

2) In 4:159, after denying that the Jews killed or
crucified Jesus and after stating that God raised him to himself,
the Qur`an says:

wa in min ahl al-kitab illa la yu`minanna bi hi qabla mawt hi
(And there is none of the people of the book but will believe in
him before his death).

These words also can be and have been interpreted in different ways,
depending on how the pronouns are understood.

One interpretation takes “his death” as “Jesus’ death” and “believe
in him” as “believe in Jesus” That is, before Jesus dies all people
of the book, i.e. the Jews will have come to believe in him. This
assumes that Jesus has not yet died, for which support is found in
the statement that God raised him to himself.

A second interpretation again takes “believe in him” as “believe in
Jesus” but takes “his death” as “death of one of the people of the
book”. That is, none of the people of the book – sometimes taken to
refer to Jews, since the Christians already believe in Jesus – dies
without first coming to faith in Jesus as the true messenger of God.
Ibn ‘Abbas said that even if a Jew dies by beheading (unexpectedly)
his soul does not depart from the body till he believes in Jesus.
Ibn ‘Abbas was asked what if someone among the people of the book
dies by falling from a wall. He replied that he will believe during
the fall. In addition to Ibn ‘Abbas this opinion is attributed to
Muhammad bin Sirin, Dahhak and Juwayriah. The
interpretation also produced an alleged variant reading of the
Qur`an: instead of mawt hi (his death), Ubayy is alleged to
have read mawt him (their death, i.e. the death of the people
of the book). One reason given to prefer this interpretation over
the first one is that it allows the verse to be applied without
exception to all generations of the people of the book that arose
after Jesus, whereas the interpretation which takes “his death” as
the death of Jesus would apply only to the generation that lived at
the time of Jesus’ return and death.

Another interpretation attributed to ‘Ikramah, takes “believe in
him” as “believe in Muhammad” and “his death” in the sense of “the
death of the people of the book”. This gives the same meaning as the
first interpretation except that the faith attained by the people of
the book before dying is faith in the Prophet Muhammad.

Thus there is no Qur`anic verse that clearly refers, or is generally
believed by commentators to refer to Jesus’ return. Moreover, there
are verses that call into question the traditional picture of Jesus
being taken to heaven alive only to return from there at some future
time. Thus 3:55 talks of the death of Jesus as if it had already
taken place, for, it reads: “And when God said, ‘O ‘Isa! I am going
to cause you to die and raise you towards myself …’”. This suggests
that Jesus died before being raised, in which case his raising is in
some spiritual sense and not in a bodily sense, as is often assumed.
In 19:31 Jesus says: God “has enjoined upon me prayer and zakah for
as long as I am alive (hayy)”. The command to pay zakah
(poor-rate) as long as one is alive fits much better with the
picture of Jesus dying like other human beings during his stay on
this earth rather than with the picture of his bodily ascension
without death and his being alive in heaven. A couple of verses
later in 19:33 Jesus says: “So peace on me the day I was born, and
the day I die and the day I am raised to life”. This is best
understood as the usual Qur`anic sequence of birth, death, and
resurrection through which all human beings must pass. This
explanation is further supported by the fact that exactly the same
statement is made concerning John the Baptist earlier in 19:15: “And
peace on him the day he was born, the day he dies and the day he is
raised to life”. One may also note the parallel between the
following two verses, one about Jesus and the other about Muhammad:

And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; messengers have
already passed away before him … (3:144)

Al-Masih, son of Mary is no more than a messenger; messengers
have already passed away before him … (5:75)

MUWATTA

This, earliest extant collection of Hadith, compiled by Imam Malik
(died 179 H) contains no reference to the return of Jesus. This may
be explained by saying that Muwatta is primarily concerned with law
and is not like the other more comprehensive collections. But this
argument is only partially valid in view of the following:

Muwatta does record traditions that are not directly related to
law, e.g. the description of hell (57/1-2) or the description or
names of the Prophet Muhammad (49/1, 61/1).

Bukhari mentions the return of Jesus (3/425) relating to a legal
point: killing of pigs and illegality of the sale of pigs. Muslim
uses a tradition about Jesus’ return to support hajj al-tamattu‘.
Malik could have similarly found a legal point in the traditions
of Jesus’ return.

Muwatta gives ahadith about the Dajjal (12/4, 15/33, 45/16, 49/2),
in the last of which a description of Jesus and of the Dajjal is
given (49/2). In this connection a mention of the return of Jesus
was perfectly appropriate. Yet no such mention is made.

The absence of any clear reference to the return of Jesus in the
Qur`an and our earliest source of ahadith makes it difficult to say
that the Prophet Muhammad taught the belief in the return of Jesus.
This is understandable since the belief is problematic. It implies
that Jesus did not or could not fulfill the messianic expectations
the first time around. The question is why he did not or could not.
There is nothing in the whole Jewish prophetic tradition – the
foundation of Christian messianic expectations – which says that the
Messiah must come twice. Perhaps one possible explanation of why
Jesus had to come twice is that the first time around the
circumstances were not ripe for the fulfillment of the messianic
prophecies. But then why did God send the Messiah before his time?
It is not consistent with God’s omniscience and omnipotence that he
should send his Messiah and then let him not fulfill the task that
he was meant to do. Finally, recall that if the Qur`an gives Jesus
any messianic role it is that of a Prophet-Messiah who brings
revelation from God. This function Jesus either completed in his
first mission or he left it for the Prophet Muhammad (61:6; cf. John
16:7, 12-13) to complete and hence there is no need for his second
coming.

Muslim traditions about the
return of Jesus

Books of ahadith written in the third century do contain several
traditions about the return of Jesus. In view of the above
considerations it is doubtful that these traditions go back to the
Prophet of Islam. They should be rather regarded as the views of
some early Muslims, which, as we shall see later, nevertheless have
some value and validity.

BUKHARI AND MUSLIM

On any subject the traditions considered most reliable are usually
those that are recounted by both Bukhari and Muslim. Such a
tradition is called muttafaq ‘alay hi (agreed upon). There
are two agreed upon ahadith about the return of Jesus.

FIRST HADITH COMMON TO BUKHARI AND MUSLIM

Abu Hurayrah said: The Messenger of God said: “How will you be
when the son of Mary descends amongst you and your imam (is)
from amongst you (wa imam kum min kum)?”

The Arabic is identical in Bukhari and Muslim. The words “your imam
from amongst you” can be understood in two ways: a) Jesus will
descend as your imam; b) when Jesus will descend, you will have your
own imam other than Jesus. The two interpretations seem to have
given rise to other versions of the hadith, not agreed upon (muttafaq
‘alay hi). Thus we read in Muslim:

Abu Hurayrah said: The Messenger of God said: “How will you be
when the son of Mary descends amongst you and will be your imam
(fa amma kum)?”

In this hadith the interpretation a) is given a clear expression.
When it is said that Jesus will be the imam of the Muslims it is
understood that he himself will be a Muslim. This is clarified in
the following version:

From Abu Hurayrah: “The Messenger of God said: How will you be
when the son of Mary would descend amongst you and would lead
you as one amongst you (fa amma kum min kum)?” So I (Walid
bin Muslim) said to Ibn Abi Dhi`b that al-Awza‘i related to us
from al-Zuhri from Nafi‘ from Abu Hurayrah the words: “Your
leader amongst you (wa imam kum min kum)”. Ibn Abi Dhi`b
said: “Do you know what the words: ‘He would be your leader from
amongst you (amma kum min kum) mean?’” I said: “Explain
these to me.” He said: “He would lead you according to the book
of your Lord and the Sunnah of your Messenger” (Muslim).

The interpretation b), where Muslims have their own imam during the
second coming of Jesus, finds expression in the following hadith:

Jabir bin ‘Abd Allah is reported to say: I heard the Messenger
of God say: “A section of my people will not cease fighting for
truth and will prevail till the Day of Resurrection.” He said:
“Jesus son of Mary would then descend and their (Muslims')
commander (amir) would ask him to come and lead
them in prayer, but he would say: ‘No, some amongst you are
commanders over some (amongst you).’” This is the honor from God
for this Ummah (Muslim).

Whether Jesus himself will be imam of the Muslims or Muslims will
have their own imam, there is consensus on the belief that Jesus
will return as a follower of the Qur`an and Sunnah. This belief
proceeds from two Islamic doctrines:

When a new messenger comes with a book and a shari‘ah the age of
the earlier prophets ends for that nation. Consequently, when the
Prophet Muhammad who was a Messenger for all humankind, came the
time of all the earlier prophets ended. Of course, in reality
Jesus and Moses continue to have following. But this will end when
Jesus returns. Then the reality will conform to theory.

Religious truth is essentially one and all the prophets are part
of a single brotherhood. Therefore prophets support and help each
other (3:81). Jesus during his second coming will support and help
the work that is being achieved through the Qur`an and authentic
Hadith. By the same token if any of the prophets recognized by
Islam came back, be it Jesus or Moses or Ishaq or Yaqub, Muslims
would love to make him their leader (imam).

SECOND HADITH COMMON TO BUKHARI AND MUSLIM

The second agreed upon hadith comes from Al-Layth who relates it
from Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri who reportedly heard it from Sa‘id bin al-Musayyab
who in turn heard it from Abu Hurayrah:

God’s Messenger said: By him in whose hands my soul is, (Jesus)
son of Mary will descend amongst you shortly as a just ruler (hakaman
muqsitan) and will break the cross and kill the pig
and abolish the jizyah. Wealth will flow (in such
abundance that) nobody will accept (any charitable gifts). (Bukhari
3/425, Muslim 1/p. 255).

Again in Arabic there is a complete agreement between Bukhari and
Muslim. In the part about abundance of wealth vowels can be and have
been supplied differently (yufid al-mala
instead of yafid al-malu) to get the following
sense: Jesus will distribute so much wealth that nobody will be left
to want it.

There are two other versions of the above hadith mentioned in both
Bukhari and Muslim. But if we go by what is supported by at least
two of the three versions, we see that the version of Al-Layth
quoted above is the most original. This version can be attributed
with great confidence to Ibn Shihab (died around 125 H), since three
persons quote from him. We cannot take it earlier than this with the
same confidence because we do not have any version independent of
Ibn Shihab. The possibility therefore exists that words of Abu
Hurayrah (d. 59 H) or Ibn al-Musayyab (d. 93 H) have been attributed
to the Prophet during the process of transmission. This strengthens
the doubts already raised about the authenticity of the traditions
about the return of Jesus.

Many of the five things that Jesus will do during his return
according to the Hadith – breaking the cross, killing the pig,
abolishing jizyah, bringing prosperity, leading the Muslims
as one of them – are also mentioned in other ahadith. Let us look at
their meaning more closely.

Even though some questions can be raised about the authenticity of
the above traditions, they do reflect some genuine Islamic ideas.

Breaking the cross: This signifies the end of the
doctrines that Christians introduced concerning Jesus after his
departure from this world. The cross, with or without the statue of
Jesus is often worshipped. “Jesus”, upon his “return”, will end this
worship and restore his teaching of the wholehearted worship of, and
commitment (al-islam) to, the one true God. Also, the
doctrine that the salvation comes through the death of Jesus on the
cross will be negated, as well as the very claim that the Jews
crucified or killed him.

Killing the pig: This means that the eating of pork
will be abolished9.
It is interesting to note that Isaiah 66:17 suggests that those who
eat pork will come to an end and will not share in the kingdom of
God.

Since prohibition of eating pork is the most important and constant
element in the dietary laws of the Old Testament, restoration of
this prohibition will deal a death blow to Paul’s claim that the Law
was nailed to the cross. This claim was in complete violation of the
teachings of Jesus and the understanding of that teaching by his
eyewitness disciples. Evidence from the Acts and Paul’s own letters
show that James the brother of Jesus and other leading disciples of
Jesus such as Peter continued to follow the Law of Moses, as they
knew it, long after the departure of Jesus who himself was faithful
to that Law, although he interpreted it very liberally. Some sayings
in the Gospels also state clearly that he taught his followers to
respect the Law (Matt 23:2, Luke 11:42).

Abolishing the jizyah. Jizyah means a
tax that non-Muslims living in a Muslim state pay. Muslims also pay
a tax called zakah. That Jesus will abolish the jizyah
does not mean that jizyah is something undesirable, since
normally all have to pay some type of tax. It also does not mean
that Jesus will take liberties with the Islamic law. This abolishing
is connected with the fact that there will be abundance of wealth,
which means that taxes will not be needed. This is why in some
ahadith it is also said that zakah or kharaj will be
abolished (Muslim, kitab al-hajj). In a version of the hadith
it is said that war will be abolished. Some scholars interpret the
abolition of jizyah to mean that the unbelievers will be
given two options: accept Islam or face war. The third option of
living in the Islamic state by paying taxes will be excluded. This
interpretation is the least likely.)

The ahadith presented above are probably the earliest traditions on
the subject of Jesus’ return. Certainly they have the earliest and
best documentation. Many of the later traditions elaborate the two
traditions we have considered, giving more specific details, e.g. at
which place and time Jesus will descend. Some also add new elements:
His coming is said to be one of the signs of the Hour. He is said to
kill the Dajjal. He marries and has children. He stays for 40 years
before dying and so on.

Important differences between the
Christian and Muslim view of Jesus’ return

One important difference between the Christian and Muslim view of
Jesus’ return is of course that in the Muslim view he will return as
a follower of the Prophet Muhammad and will very closely relate with
the Muslims. This is by no means unreasonable. For, if the returned
Jesus will be anything like the Jesus of Nazareth who came to this
world two thousand years ago, then it is natural to think that he
will be neither acceptable to committed Christians nor to committed
Jews – Christians, because Jesus is nothing like the second person
of the Christian trinity, the Son of God who comes to be crucified
for the salvation of the world; and Jews, because he was not
acceptable to them during his first coming and nothing suggests that
he will be acceptable to them during his second coming. But someone
like Jesus of Nazareth can be easily backed by the Muslims.

Another important difference between the Christian and Muslim views
is that in the Muslim view Jesus’ return takes place in history as
we know it, before the resurrection of the dead and the final
judgment. Even in traditions in which Jesus’ return is a sign for
the coming of the hour, the return does not play any role in
bringing the hour nor does Jesus perform any special function in the
hereafter. In the Christian tradition Jesus is presented as the
eschatological “judge of the living and the dead”. But in Islam the
final judge is God himself. In fact, Jesus, like other messengers
(7:6), will himself be judged and questioned. The Qur`an even gives
the interrogation of Jesus that will take place before God as the
final judge:

And when God will say, O ‘Isa son of Maryam! did
you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides God,
he will say: Glory be to you, it did not befit me that I should
say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, you would
indeed have known it; you know what is in my mind, and I do not
know what is in your mind, surely you are the great knower of
the unseen things.1 did not say to them aught save what you did
enjoin me with: That serve God, my Lord and your Lord, and I was
a witness of them so long as I was among them, but when you did
cause me to die, you were the watcher over them, and you are
witness of all things. If you should chastise them, then surely
they are your servants; and if you should forgive them, then
surely you are the Mighty, the Wise. God will say: This is the
day when their truth shall benefit the truthful ones; they shall
have gardens beneath which rivers flow to abide in them for
ever: God is well pleased with them and they are well pleased
with God; this is the mighty achievement. God’s is the kingdom
of the heavens and the earth and what is in them; and he has
power over all things (5:116-120).

Some questions raised by the
belief in the return of Jesus

I have been asked the following question by some non-Muslim friends:
Does the Muslim belief in Jesus’ return mean that Jesus is
superior to Muhammad?

As part of the answer, it should be first noted that in Islam there
is a certain reservation to occupy oneself with the question, who is
the greatest prophet? There are two reasons for this: 1) In the
past, because of the tendency to glorify the founders of their
religions and other great individuals, people have been misled to
deify and worship them. This is particularly clearly seen in case of
Jesus, since from history we can actually witness the stages of
Jesus’ glorification that finally culminated in his widespread
deification and worship. In order to avoid such errors, Islam
stresses that God is the greatest and discourages too much
glorification of human figures. 2) Islam wants to bring together
different peoples into a single brotherhood/sisterhood under one
true God. Too much preoccupation with the question as to who is the
greatest prophet will create rivalries among different religious
communities, which would unnecessarily hinder the process of
bringing them together.

In line with the above tendencies the Qur`an says that the Prophet
and his followers “make no difference (nufarriqu) between any
of his messengers” (2:285). This does not mean that all prophets are
equal in status and rank but that all true prophets form a single
brotherhood engaged in the same work and Muslims honor them all.

Elsewhere the Qur`an says that God has favored some messengers above
others and raised some in ranks (2:253, 17:55). Although, the Qur`an
does not clearly say so, there is no doubt that the role given to
the Prophet Muhammad makes him the greatest prophet. He is the
prophet of God for all humanity (7:158, 10:57, 21:107, 25:1, 81:27
etc) and as the last prophet (33:40) he is also the prophet for all
future time. He completes and perfects (5:3) the revelation given to
earlier prophets.

The two tendencies found in the Qur`an are also found in the Hadith
except that the Hadith lacks the consistency of the Qur`an. Thus
there are ahadith in which the Prophet tells his followers not to
consider him superior to some other prophets.

The Prophet said, "None of you should say that I am better than
Yunus (i.e. Jonah)." (Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number
624)

The choice of Jonah here is significant. Jonah is a relatively minor
prophet who is known to have made a terrible mistake. The idea
probably is that Muhammad is not to be raised even above
Jonah.

A person came to God's Messenger and said: “O, the best of
creation”; thereupon God’s Messenger said: “He is Ibrahim.”
(Muslim, Book 030, Number 5841.)

In another tradition, a Jew swears “by him who gave Moses
superiority over all human beings!" A Muslim slaps him, whereupon
the Jew goes to the Prophet and complains. The Prophet was angry
with the Muslim and said:

“Don't give superiority to any prophet amongst God’s prophets,
for when the trumpet will be blown, everyone on the earth and in
the heavens will become unconscious except those whom God will
exempt. The trumpet will be blown for the second time and I will
be the first to be resurrected to see Moses holding God’s
Throne. I will not know whether the unconsciousness which Moses
received on the Day of Tur has been sufficient for him, or he
has got up before me.” [This may give the impression that Moses
is superior to all the other prophets. In order to counter this
impression, in some versions the Prophet adds:] “And I do not
say that there is anybody who is better than Yunus bin Matta.”
Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 626, Muslim Book
030, Number 5853).

But despite this, traditions leave little doubt that God has
appointed the Prophet as leader of humanity till the judgment day.
Thus we read that when the Prophet was transported from the sacred
mosque in Makkah to the site of the sacred mosque in Jerusalem, he
met all the prophets and led them in prayer. Also, it is stated that
if Moses were to come back to life, he will have the religious
obligation to follow Muhammad. Likewise, when Jesus will return he
will come as Muhammad’s followers. The spirit of the Qur`an and
Hadith therefore is that while we should not be too occupied with
glorifying the Prophet Muhammad above other prophets, as for
example, the Christians are occupied in the glorification of Jesus,
it is necessary for us to believe that the Prophet is the
God-appointed leader and messenger for all humanity and for all
times to come, for, otherwise he cannot perform his mission.

As for Jesus’ rank among the prophets, he appears in the Qur`an and
Hadith as one of the major prophets, but he is not the greatest of
all the prophets after the Prophet Muhammad. Thus Jesus is included
among the prophets whom the Prophet Muhammad meets during his
ascension to heaven, but he is not the one who is found in the
highest heaven. That place is sometimes given to Abraham and
sometimes to Moses. The Qur`anic statements that God has favored
some messengers or prophets above others is followed in one case by
a reference to Moses (2:253) and in another case by a reference to
David (17:55), although Jesus is also mentioned in one of them
(2:253).

It is thus not surprising that the return of Jesus is never
understood by Muslims to imply his superiority over other prophets,
much less over the Prophet Muhammad. This is not unlike the
situation in Judaism. For most Jews Moses is the greatest of all
prophets. Yet it is Elias or Elijah whose return in the end time is
expected. To be sure Moses’ return is also sometimes expected but
this expectation is relatively of late origin, is not found in the
Old Testament, and is probably nowhere as widespread as the
expectation of Elijah’s return.

Which figure is expected to return usually depends not on his
superiority but on the way his ministry ended. If his ministry ends
suddenly, leaving the mission somewhat incomplete or if he
disappears mysteriously, there develops a belief in his return. Thus
mystery surrounds the final fate of Elijah and this seems to have
led to the idea of his ascension and return. Likewise, among the
shi‘ah there is the belief in the occultation and return of the 12th
imam. It so happens that after the age of 6 the whereabouts of the
imam were a secret shared only by a very few people and his final
fate was no better known. This led to the belief in his occultation
and return. The case of Jesus was probably similar. In order to
escape the hostile authorities he hid himself and then disappeared.
The tradition of his crucifixion probably arose as one explanation
of what happened to him. Another explanation was that he ascended to
heaven whence he will come back to complete his messianic work.

In case of the Prophet Muhammad no belief in his return developed
because his life and death were very public events. Also, he
accomplished the mission that he was ordained by God to accomplish,
as is in fact declared in the Qur`an (5:3). Finally, his return is
not needed because he did not really leave the world. Through the
well preserved words of the Qur`an and his Sunnah he has assumed a
permanent authentic presence in the world. This is also why he is
the last prophet: Through the Qur`an and Sunnah prophecy has become
an ever-present reality. According to Muslims this cannot be said of
earlier prophets because their words were not meant for all people
and for all times and they were not preserved with the same degree
of faithfulness as the Qur`an and the Sunnah.

There is yet another reason the belief in Jesus’ return is not seen
in Islam as a basis for his superiority over the Prophet of Islam is
that the Muslim tradition views this return as taking place in the
service of Islam. As a follower of the Prophet Muhammad and he will
bring Christians and Jews under the fold of Islam by overcoming
factors that have so far prevented this. In case of Christians,
these factors are: the doctrine of redemption through the cross,
Trinitarian conceptions of God, and Pauline rejection of the law. In
case of the Jews these factors are: beliefs that make them see their
nation, their ancient land, and their ancient Davidic kingdom much
more important religiously than they actually are. Jesus upon his
return will drive home to Christians the Islamic message that he was
no more divine than Moses and other prophets, that his blood had
nothing to do with man’s salvation and that the law is not nailed on
the cross but is only adapted to changing circumstances. To the Jews
he will drive home the Islamic message that although in the history
of revelation and salvation some nations may be more important than
others and God may even at times favor some above the others, as
indeed he did in case of the children of Israel (2:47-48, 122-123,
7:138-141), neither the Jewish nation nor any other nation is
permanently and unconditionally given a favored or chosen status
(5:54, 62:6).

Why could this message not be conveyed to Christians and Jews by the
Muslims? Well, Jews and Christians have to find their way to Islam
through their own internal developments. The return of Jesus
represents those internal developments.

Another question raised by the belief in the return of Jesus is:
Does the return of Jesus mean that the Prophet was not the last
prophet?How can it be said that there is no prophet after
Muhammad when according to some ahadith Jesus, a prophet, will come
again?

This question has
been discussed quite early by Muslims. It is raised and answered by
Zamakhshari in his comment on 33:40: “If you ask how Muhammad can be
the last of the prophets when Jesus will appear towards the end of
the world? I shall reply that the finality of the prophethood of
Muhammad means that no one will be endowed with prophethood after
him. Jesus is among those upon whom prophethood was endowed before
Muhammad. Moreover, Jesus will appear as a follower of Muhammad and
he will offer prayers with his face towards the Qiblah of Islam, as
a member of the community of the Muslims.” It is probably this
question and answer that lies behind a saying attributed to ‘A‘isha,
the Prophet’s wife: “Say that he (i.e., the Prophet) is khatam
(seal) of the prophets, but do not say, there is no prophet after
him.” The attestation of this saying is very late and no early oral
authority is known for it. The saying conflicts with earlier
traditions in which the Prophet himself says, “There is no prophet
after me”, exactly the statement that ‘A‘ishah allegedly tells
people not to say. The saying is probably one way to answer the
question raised above. It is trying to tell us that while the
Prophet Muhammad is indeed the last prophet, it is not quite
accurate to say that no prophet will come after him since the return
of the Prophet Jesus will take place after him.

Reflections in the light of
current circumstances

Although the ahadith about the return of Jesus probably do not go
back to the Prophet, they are in some way valuable and valid. The
very expectation among numerous and powerful followers of the Jewish
and Christian religion of the coming/return of the Messiah will
produce some figure claiming to be the Messiah. For the very fact
that Christians are waiting for the second coming of Jesus and the
Jews are waiting for the Messiah is enough to guarantee that some
day some one will rise as the Messiah and attract numerous
followers. Their will be a willful attempt to “fulfill” the
messianic prophecies. This will play havoc in the world because of
the number and power of Jews and Christians. The world has already
tasted the disastrous results of the willful attempt to create and
maintain with violence a Jewish state in fulfillment of Biblical
ideas. More comprehensive attempts to fulfill the Biblical
prophecies will result in even greater disaster.

The figure that Judeo-Christian expectations will produce will not
be very close to Jesus of Nazareth. That figure will have to live up
to the Christian belief that Jesus was God the Son who was crucified
for the salvation of the world. He will have to be the judge who
will destroy those who do not believe in these doctrines. He will
also in some way try to fulfill the expectations about the
restoration of the Temple and of the Davidic kingdom that will rule
the earth with a rod of iron.

Evangelical Christians and Zionist Jews are already creating out of
the Biblical prophecies plans for the future course of history
leading to the coming of the Messiah or the return of Jesus and are
willfully trying, with considerable power and money, to move events
in the direction of those plans. There is an alliance between the
Jews and Christians against Islam and Muslims, with a focus on the
destruction of the Dome of the Rock even though the Christian plan
also involves destroying those Jews that would not accept the
crucified Son of God.

Because of the willfulness involved and inherent contradictions of
the Evangelical/Jewish alliance, the messianic “play” that will be
enacted will be based on great deception. The leader presented as
the Christ will try to be many things to many people. He will play
at once on the traditional Christian beliefs, the Jewish
nationalistic beliefs, and even Muslim beliefs. He will talk love
and democracy but build and maintain his leadership by coalitions of
wars, military might and money.

In short, what Judeo-Christian expectation will produce will be the
Dajjal (equivalent of Anti-Christ), predictions about whose coming
are better attested in the Hadith than that of the return of Jesus.
But humanity has an inbuilt ability to correct the evil that it sets
in motion. Hence the evil brought by the Dajjal will generate
opposition. Another leader will arise to oppose him from within the
Judeo-Christian world that produced him in the first place. This
leader will remind Jews and Christians of the true teachings of
Jesus of Nazareth and lead them on that basis. For this reason he
can be called a second Jesus, or, if you like, the returned Jesus,
though not literally. While the Dajjal will derive support from
powerful people, from military might, and from abundance of money
and he will rule by fear even as he talks of love and democracy,
“Jesus” will derive support from a vast majority of common people,
from fair-minded, truth loving Jews, Christians and particularly
Muslims all over the world. He will manage to defeat the Dajjal
(mostly through political struggle) and restore some semblance of
sanity, real compassion, justice, and prosperity to a world ravaged
by the Dajjal. The victory of “Jesus” will necessarily deal a blow
to the Christian incarnational and redemptive doctrines and to the
Jewish nationalism, the main obstacles in the way of Islam. As these
obstacles are removed, the world will be ready and willing to accept
Islam. To the extent this “Jesus” will rise from the Judeo-Christian
world, will be rejected by traditional Christians and Jews, will be
supported by Muslims and will help in the final acceptance of Islam
by most of the world, the traditions in Bukhari and Muslim and other
books of Hadith have got it exactly right.

The following section was added in response to questions from some
Muslims:

Why the ahadith
about the return of Jesus, even the two found in both Bukhari and
Muslim probably do not go back to the Messenger of God?

How we evaluate the reliability of ahadith
depends on how we answer four questions:

First, is the process of determining authentic
ahadith a human science or is it an act of God inspiration? My
answer is that it is a human science. This is also accepted by many
scholars. To be sure, there is a story that the Prophet Muhammad
used to appear to Imam Bukhari in dream and tell him which hadith he
should include in his sahih. But this story is not taken seriously
by scholars. In the vast corpus of discussions among Muslim fuqaha
and muhaddithun we rarely if ever hear recourse to this story to
argue that all ahadith in Bukhari are authentic.

Second, if the process of determining authentic
ahadith is a human science, has it reached its final development or
can it be improved further to a considerable degree? My answer is
that it can be improved further to a very high degree. The basis of
this is that even in exact sciences such as physics human beings
have been proved wrong each time they concluded that a science has
reached its final development. The science of Hadith is clearly an
inexact science requiring much use of subjective judgments and is
therefore all the more subject to errors and hence improvement. This
means that we cannot shut the argument about the authenticity of a
hadith by appeal to past authorities.

Third, do the Qur`an and the Hadith together form
the foundation of Islam or is the Qur`an the foundation upon which
the Hadith builds by explanation and elaboration and by providing
the context? My answer is that the Qur`an alone is the foundation.
The basis for this is provided by several Qur`anic verses and
several ahadith that clearly state that Qur`an provides complete
guidance for humanity. My answer is also based on the fact that only
the Qur`an has been preserved with complete faithfulness by a divine
act. If the Qur`an and the Hadith were both foundational, they
should have both been preserved with equal faithfulness.

Fourth, how far the isnad method is reliable? My
answer is: not very much and here is my basis for saying so.

It is well known that very large number of
ahadith were wrongly attributed, either as deliberately fabricated
lies or by mistakes of varying degree of innocence. Clearly, if
words/actions could be falsely attributed to the Prophet, then isnad
could also be falsely constructed. The isnad method tries to avoid
this conclusion by requiring that the narrators be “trustworthy”
both in terms of character and memory. To elaborate the idea,
suppose we have a report like this:

“A said that B said that C said that D said that
the Prophet said ….”.

Suppose also that A, B, C, D are all trustworthy.
Since A is trustworthy we can accept the report: “B said that C said
that D said that the Prophet said …” Since B is also trustworthy we
can accept the report: “C said that D said that the Prophet said …”
Continuing this way, we can accept the report: “the Prophet said …”.

This approach certainly makes some sense and was
worth pursuing. Indeed we should be thankful that our classical
muhaddithun pursued this approach, since in the process they have
preserved for us a vast amount of data that we can today analyse.
But the approach is not without problems and it is easy to see that
it has not produced very reliable results.

To begin with, very few people are completely
faithful to facts, as we can see from what even modern journalists
do to the events that they report. In earlier times, especially in
the time before our great muhaddithun, objectivity and accuracy in
reporting was not even held by most people as an ideal to be
pursued. The need to provide isnad was also not felt. Moreover,
characterization of people as trustworthy or untrustworthy is not
like the distinction between black and white. Even trustworthy
people can distort facts under the influence of certain assumptions
they have made or certain motivations they feel. For example,
Muhammad Muhsin Khan who translated Sahih of Bukhari is trusted
person but in many places his translations can be shown to reflect
his assumptions and not to faithfully represent the original Arabic.
Thus, he translates hadith number 282 volume 6 as follows:

'Aisha used to say: "When (the Verse): "They should draw their
veils over their necks and bosoms," was revealed, (the ladies)
cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with
the cut pieces."

Here the reference to "faces" is not at all found in the original
Arabic. Living in Saudi Arabia Muhsin Khan has assumed that Islam
teaches women to cover their faces and this has influenced his
translation. This type of changes in the original are very common
both in transmission and in translation.

It is therefore not surprising that even for
trustworthy narrators we possess negative judgments that calls their
credibility to question. Take for example Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri from
whom traditions have been reported by almost every muhaddith
including of course Malik, Bukhari and Muslim. Yet the following
evidence suggests that al-Zuhri did not always conform to acceptable
standards of accuracy and objectivity:

Rabi‘ah would say to Ibn Shihab: My situation is
totally different from you. Whatever I say, I say it from my own
self and you say it on the authority of the Prophet and so you
must be careful, and it is not befitting for a person to waste
himself [like this]. (Bukhari, Tarikh
al-Kabir, vol. 3, Beirut: Dar al-Kutub
al-‘Ilmiyyah, pp. 286-7)

Rabi‘ah would say to Ibn Shihab: When you narrate
something according to your own opinion, always inform the
people that this is your own view. And when you narrate
something from the Prophet, always inform them that it is from
the Prophet so that they do not consider it to be your opinion.
(Khatib Baghdadi, Al-Faqih wa Al-Mutafaqqih, vol. 1,
Lahore: Dar al-Ahya al-Sunnah, p. 148).

Imam Bukhari had the following opinion:

Zuhri would narrate ahadith and on most occasions
would insert sentences from his own self. Some of these would be
mursal and some of them would be his own.
(Ibn Rajab, Fath al-Bari, 1st ed., vol. 5, Jaddah: Dar
Ibn al-Jawzi, 1996, p. 286)

In a letter to Imam Malik, Imam Layth Ibn Sa‘ad writes:

When we would meet Ibn Shihab, there would arise a
difference of opinion in many issues. When any one of us would
ask him in writing about some issue, he, in spite of being so
learned, would give three very different answers, and he would
not even be aware of what he had already said. It is because of
this that I have left him – something that you did not like
(Ibn Qayyim, I’lam al- Muwaqqi‘in, vol.
3, Beirut: Dar al-Jayl, p. 85).

It is possible to go beyond the above general
considerations and actually demonstrate that isnads got
modified/invented during the process of transmission just as the
contents of the ahadith did, not only by untrustworthy narrators but
also by trustworthy one. Thus the story of the malicious accusation
(ifk) against umm al-mu`minin ‘Aishah is narrated by al-Zuhri in Ibn
Ishaq, Bukhari and Muslim. In all versions al-Zuhri learns details
of the story from four persons. But in Ibn Ishaq one of the four
persons is Sa'id bin Jubayr while in Bukhari and Muslim the
same person changes to Sa‘id bin al-Musayyab.

Another example: In
Muwatta we read the following saying of Ibn ‘Umar:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi’
that ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar used to say that muhrima (a
woman in ihram) should wear neither a veil (niqab)
nor gloves.

But in Bukhari it has become a saying of the
Prophet:

‘Abd Allah bin Yazid related to us: al-Layth
related to us: Nafii’ related to us from ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar
who said: A person stood up and asked, “O Messenger of God! What
clothes may be worn in the state of ihram?” The Prophet
replied, “… the muhrima should wear neither a veil (niqab)
nor gloves.” (Bukhari, kitab jaza al-sayd ..., bab ma
yunha min al-tayyib li al-muhrim wa al-muhrima)

The words “the muhrima should wear
neither a veil (niqab) nor gloves” are exactly the same
in Arabic as the words attributed to ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar in Muwatta.
The above hadith from Bukhari is also quoting ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar
but while in Muwatta the words are the opinion of Ibn ‘Umar in
Bukhari Ibn ‘Umar is attributing them to the Prophet. One naturally
asks, Why in Muwatta Ibn ‘Umar does not attribute these words to the
Prophet? Ibn ‘Umar lived in Madinah and so did Malik. The knowledge
of the Hadith left by Ibn ‘Umar would have been more easily
available to Malik than to Bukhari who came much later. Moreover,
from Ibn ‘Umar the tradition is being narrated by Nafi‘ in both the
Muwatta and Bukhari and Malik personally knew Nafi‘. Had Nafi’ heard
from ‘Abd Allah a saying of the Prophet he would have known. This
suggests the conclusion that the saying that a muhrima should not
wear niqab or gloves existed as an opinion of ‘Abd Allah ibn Umar or
someone else, and by the time Bukhari compiled his Sahih the opinion
was attributed to the Prophet himself. Further support of the above
view is provided by the fact that not all companions of the Prophet
agreed with the opinion. It is evident from the following tradition
in Muwatta that some companions saw nothing wrong with women using
veils during the state of ihram:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Hisham
bin ‘Urwa that Fatima bint al‑Mundhir said, "We used to veil our
faces when we were in ihram in the company of Asma bint
Abi Bakr as‑Siddiq." (Muwatta, kitab al-hajj, bab takhmir al-muhrim
wajhahu).

Numerous serious contradictions among ahadith,
often found in the same collections, including Bukhari and Muslim,
show that the isnad method has not given satisfactory results. For
if the chain of narrators used by the muhaddithun were trustworthy
in character and memory, why did some of them contradicted so
seriously with others in reporting the same event. To illustrate
such contradictions I will give here one example.

In Bukhari (kitab al-istidhan, bab ayah al-hijab,
kitab at-tafsir, bab la tadkhulu ...) and Muslim (kitab as-salam,
bab ibahat al-khuruj li an-nisa ...) we read the following
explanation of the circumstances of the revelation of the verse of
hijab:

Ishaq related to me: Yaqub bin Ibrahim
inofrmed us: my father related to us from Saleh from Ibn Shihab
(al-Zuhri) who said: ‘Urwah ibn al-Zubayr informed me that
‘A’ishah said: ‘Umar bin al-Khattab used to say that the
Messenger of God, “Let your wives be in hijab”. But he did not
do so. And the wives of the Prophet used to go at night to al‑Manasi
(a vast open place near Baqia at Medina to answer the call of
nature). Once Sawdah bint Zam‘ah (the wife of the Prophet) went
out and she was a tall lady. ‘Umar bin al-Khattab saw her while
he was in a gathering and said, “I have recognized you, O Sawdah!”
(He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verse of al‑hijab
may be revealed.) So God revealed the verse of al‑hijab.

But in another version of the same story in
Bukhari ‘Umar sees Sawdah not before but after the verse of
hijab had been revealed:

Zakariya bin Yahya related to me: Abu Usamah
related to us from Hisham from his father (’Urwah) from ‘A’ishah
who said: Sawdah (the wife of the Prophet) went out for her need
after hijab had been ordained. She was a fat huge
lady, and everybody who knew her before could recognize her. So
‘Umar bin al‑Khattab saw her and said, “O Sawdah! By God, you
cannot hide yourself from us, so think of a way by which you
should not be recognized on going out. Sawdah returned while the
Messenger of God was in my house taking his supper and a bone
covered with meat was in his hand. She entered and said, “O
Messenger of God! I went out for a need and ‘Umar said to me
so‑and‑so.” Then God inspired him (the Prophet) and when the
state of inspiration was over and the bone was still in his hand
as he had not put it down, he said (to Sawdah), “You (women)
have been allowed to go out for your needs.” (Bukhari, kitab
at-tafsir, bab la tadkhulu buyut an-nabi ... )

Some harmonisers may argue that ‘Umar twice saw
Sawdah go out, once before the revelation of the verse of hijab
and once after. But such an explanation is most unlikely and
extremely artificial. It is much more natural to conclude that we
are dealing here with two versions of a single story. The
contradiction here is significant. In one version the story provides
an occasion for the revelation of the verse of hijab while in the
other version the verse of hijab had already been in force when the
story happened. It is clear that one of Bukhari’s “trustworthy”
narrators is either deliberately changing the story or has such a
bad memory that he could not remember whether the incident took
place after the verse of hijab or whether it provided the very
occasion for the revelation of that verse.

When we examine numerous examples of such
contradictions it becomes clear that the isnad method has not worked
very well.

Let us now turn to the ahadith about the return
of Jesus. My view that these ahadith probably do not go back to the
Messenger of God is based on the following arguments already
presented in my article in a somewhat different way:

The Qur`an does not state that Jesus will
return to establish the religion of truth throughout the earth.
This fact will not have much relevance for those who believe the
Hadith to form the foundation of Islam along with the Qur`an. But
if one believes, as I do, that the Qur`an is the foundation while
the Hadith simply builds upon it, then the omission of a reference
to the return of Jesus from the Qur`an becomes much more
significant. The return of a past prophet and the global victory
of Islam is such an important event in the history of humanity
that a reference is expected to it in the Qur`an, if it is the
foundation of Islam. The Qur`an thrice promises Islam’s global
victory (9:33, 48:28, 61:9) but never hints that this victory will
come when Jesus returns.

Muwatta also does not mention the return of
Jesus. In my article I showed that if Imam Malik knew of the
traditions of Jesus’ return and he believed in them, he would have
no reason to omit them. Hence there are only two possibilities:
either the Imam did not know about these traditions or he did not
believe in them. In both cases the authenticity of the traditions
is cast into doubt. Malik wrote his Muwatta after the middle of
the second century, about 150 years after the Prophet. During this
time the belief in the return of Jesus -- an interesting,
fascinating and important belief -- would have spread far enough
for a man of Malik’s knowledge to come to know about it. And if
Malik knew about it but did not believe in it, then his judgment
in the matter carries some weight since he lived a considerable
time before Bukhari and Muslim.

In Bukhari all the ahadith about the return of Jesus have chains
that pass through Ibn Shihab and then after one more link through
Abu Hurayrah. If the isnad method was very dependable this would
have been acceptable but given the fact that the isnad method has
not produced too dependable results we cannot put too much
confidence in the reliability of these ahadith.
There is a distinct possibility that al-Zuhri heard these
“ahadith” from not-too-reliable sources and then transmitted them
without mentioning the source, as he was at times wont to do. This
will explain why these “ahadith” are not found in Muwatta: Imam
Malik might have heard these traditions from al-Zuhri, but he did
not put much trust in them since no reliable source was given by
al-Zuhri. Later, by the time of Bukhari and Muslim these
traditions had been attributed to the Prophet through Abu Hurayrah
and then they became acceptable.

The following section was added in response to more questions from
some Muslims:

Return of Jesus: Response II

It does not at all surprise me that some readers are not convinced
by my reasons for holding that the traditions about the return of
Jesus are probably wrongly attributed to the Holy Prophet. This is
partly because it is not easy to abandon old assumptions and partly
because how we evaluate the reliability of ahadith depends on how we
answer four basic questions that I raised previously. If two Muslims
do not agree on their answers to these questions, they can argue
about particular ahadith forever without agreeing. Therefore once
again I will anchor my discussion around my answers to the basic
questions.

1) The Qur`an alone is the foundation of Islam

This can be understood in two ways. One is that the role of the
Sunnah/Hadith is to explain and elaborate the Qur`an and provide
information about the context of the Qur`anic statements. Sunnah/Hadith
is not an independent source of the Islamic guidance. (Some readers
have made an issue of the distinction between Sunnah and Hadith but
Sunnah is almost always known through the Hadith and is practically
a part of the Hadith). The other is that the Qur`an is a
crystallization or a comprehensive summary of the Sunnah/Hadith that
God himself produced and preserved so that it can teach the basis of
everything that we need to know.

A reader’s concern that the position that the Qur`an alone is the
foundation of Islam sounds “dangerously close” to the Qur`an-only
people is understandable. But it is dangerous only if we do not pay
attention to words being used. I clearly recognize the role of the
Sunnah/Hadith in Islam but not that of an independent source.

The position is supported by general rational arguments, by the
Qur`an and by the MOST reliable ahadith. The rational argument is
that if the Qur`an and the Sunnah/Hadith both constitute the
foundation of Islam, they should have both been preserved with equal
reliability which is obviously not the case. Clearly, then the role
of the Sunnah/Hadith is so secondary in comparison to the Qur`an
that it can perform that role despite the flawed nature of the
transmission of the Sunnah/Hadith.

The Qur`anic basis of the position is provided by verses like:

And We have sent down unto you (O Prophet) the book explaining (tibyanan)
everything and as a guidance, and mercy, and glad tidings for
those who have surrendered (to God) (16:89). Shall I seek other
than God as judge when it is he who has sent down unto you the
book well explained (mufassalan)? … (6:114-115). A book
whose revelatory statements (ayat) have been
firmly formulated (uhkimat) and then explained (fussilat) by one
wise and informed (11:1).

The statement that the Qur`an “explains everything” must mean at the
very least that everything we need to know for our religion is found
in the Qur`an in a clear reference, although some less significant
details could be found in the Sunnah/Hadith. This is not to say, as
one reader puts it, “the
essentials of faith (Iman) are all grounded in the Qur'anic
teachings themselves. Certainly, all ‘seven’ elements of the
declaration of faith in detail (Iman-e Mufassal) are all there in
the Qur`an.” This can hardly be described as “explaining
everything”. The import of the words “explaining everything” is that
whatever we are required to believe or do as Muslims and not
just the “essentials of faith” is grounded in clear references in
the Qur`an. Now this is not the case with the belief in Jesus’
return. I am well aware that there are two verses that some people
interpret as a reference to Jesus’ return. But the references are
far from clear and have led commentators to suggest a variety of
different interpretations. If God wanted us to believe in Jesus’
return he would have been far clearer. Consequently, my
interpretation of “explaining everything” requires me to seriously
doubt whether belief in Jesus’ return is part of Islam.

The most reliable traditions also suggest that
the Qur`an alone is the foundation of Islam. Thus in the well known
khutbah that the Prophet gave during the farewell hajj
he said:

Then [during his farewell hajj the Prophet] came to the bottom
of the valley, and addressed the people saying: “…. I
have left among you the Book of God, and if you hold fast to it,
you would never go astray ….” .

Here there is no mention of the Sunnah. But Ibn Ishaq as quoted by
Ibn Hisham records the saying in the following form:

I have left with you something which if you hold fast to it you
will never fall into error – a plain indication, the book of God
and the Sunnah of his prophet, so give good heed to what I say
(p. 651).

Ibn Ishaq does not give any isnad for the hadith, but Muslim does
give the isnad: Ja‘far bin Muhammad from his father Muhammad bin
‘Ali (bin Husayn bin ‘Ali bin Abi Talib) from Jabir bin ‘Abd Allah
from the Prophet. The existence of isnad makes Muslim’s version
somewhat preferable to that of Ibn Ishaq even though Ibn Ishaq is
much earlier. If so, the Prophet only told people to hold fast to
the Qur`an but someone added to his words a reference to the Sunnah.

It is because Sunnah was not part of the original tradition, it gets
replaced by other sources. Thus in a farewell type of address set at
Khumm the Prophet says in a hadith recorded by Muslim that he was
leaving two things. The first is the Book of God but the second is
NOT Sunnah:

The Prophet said: O people, I am a human being. I am about to
receive a messenger (the angel of death) from my Lord and I, in
response to God's call, (would depart from you). But I am
leaving among you two weighty things. The first is the Book of
God in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast
to the Book of God and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold
fast) to the Book of God and then said: (The second are) the
members of my household. I remind you of God regarding the
members of my family.” (Muslim, Urdu, 6. p.101)

In
the above hadith the source of guidance is still the Qur`an alone.
Ahl al-bayt are not presented as a second source of guidance,
for, Muslims are not exhorted to hold fast to ahl al-bayt as
a source of guidance as they are exhorted to hold fast to the Qur’an.
The Prophet only says, “I remind you of God concerning the ahl
al-bayt” which could mean simply to be kind and just to them.
But ahadith similar to the above are found in many later books,
where the ahl al-bayt become a second source of guidance
along with the Qur`an:

I have left among you that which if you abide by, you will never
go astray: the Book of God, and my family, the members of my house (ahl
al-bayt) (related by al-Tirmidhi, Ahmad, Ibn Abi 'Asim, al-Hakim,
al-Tabarani and al-Tahawi).

The tendency to add other sources to the Qur`an is also found in
other traditions. Thus in Ibn Sa‘d (Tabaqat) in the context
of the farewell hajj we have the following hadith:

Umm al-Husayn narrated: I saw the Prophet on the
night of ‘Arafah on a camel …. And heard him say: O people! Hear and obey, even if it be some deformed Abyssinian slave
who establishes the Book of God among you.

Here only the Book of God is mentioned, but in the following hadith
from Abu Da`ud, set in a similar farewell situation, the rightly
guided khulafa` also become a source along with the Sunnah:

The Prophet said: I enjoin you to fear God, and to hear
and obey even if it be an Abyssinian slave, for those of you
who live after me will see great disagreement. You must then
follow my Sunnah and that of the rightly-guided khulafa. Hold to
it and stick fast to it.

A very well documented tradition about the khalifah ‘Umar
shows that the sahabah clearly
understood that the Qur`an alone is the foundation of Islamic
guidance. The tradition is documented by Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa‘d, and
Bukhari. Here are the three versions:

Bukhari’s version:

Anas bin Malik heard 'Umar speaking while standing on the pulpit
of the Prophet in the morning (following the death of the
Prophet), when the people had sworn allegiance to Abu Bakr. He
said the tashahhud before Abu Bakr, and said, “amma
ba'du God has chosen for his Messenger what is with him
(paradise) rather than what is with you (the world). This
(Qur`an) is the book with which God guided your Messenger, so
hold on to it, for then you will be guided on the right path as
God guided his Messenger with it.”

Ibn Ishaq’s version:

Al-Zuhri told me from Anas bin Malik, On the day after Abu
Bakr’s acceptance in the hall he sat in the pulpit and ‘Umar got
up and spoke before him, and after duly praising God he said: “O
men, yesterday I said something which I do not find in the book
of God nor was it something that the Messenger of God entrusted
to me; but I thought that the Messenger would (continue) running
our affairs and be the last of us (alive). God has left with you
his book, by which he guided his Messenger, and if you hold fast
to that God will guide you as he guided him ....”

Ibn Sa‘d’s version:

Al-Zuhri said that he was told by Anas bin Malik that he heard
‘Umar bin al-Khattab in the Prophet’s mosque on the morning of
the day when people gave allegiance to Abu Bakr and when Abu
Bakr was sitting on the pulpit. ‘Umar recited the tashahhud
before Abu Bakr and said: “amma ba‘d, yesterday I said
something to you which was not true. By God I did not find it in
the book of God nor was it something that the Prophet entrusted
to me. It only reflected my desire that the Prophet should
remain alive. Then ‘Umar came to what he wanted to say, (my
desire was to see) the Prophet die after all of us but God chose
for the Prophet nearness to him rather than nearness to you.
This (Qur`an) is the book with which God guided your Messenger,
so hold on to it, for then you will be guided on the right path
as God guided his Messenger with it.

In all versions ‘Umar regards only the Qur`an to be the source of
guidance. In Ibn Ishaq’s and Ibn Sa’d’s versions, the words
“something that the messenger of God entrusted to me” do show that
the Prophet taught things not contained in the book of God and that
this was important in the eyes of the companions. But in subsequent
words, the focus shifts entirely to the Qur`an which is considered
sufficient for guidance: “God has left his book with you, that by
which he guided his messenger, and if you hold fast to that God will
guide you as he guided him.” In Bukhari’s version, there is no
reference to what the Messenger entrusted to ‘Umar and the entire
focus is on the book of God. Ibn Sa’d seems to be dependent on both
versions.

The farewell khutbah and the above traditions about ‘Umar
have the earliest and most varied documentation among all the
traditions that talk about the sources of guidance. That they
originally talked only about the Qur`an supports the view that the
Qur`an alone is the foundation of Islam.

2) Determining authentic
ahadith is a human science

This becomes clearer if we compare the situation with the Christian
tradition. Just as in Islam, Christianity was also faced with a
great mass of traditions about Jesus -- some fabricated, some
distorted, and a few genuine ones. At one point Christians could no
longer avoid the decision as to which traditions are to be accepted
and which are to be rejected. So they made their decision but the
basis of the decision was to accept those books that had gained
acceptability among the people and reject the rest. Later, they
attributed the accepted books to the Holy Spirit. No rational
analysis was used to separate the reliable from the unreliable
traditions. Muslims in contrast attempted to base their decision on
some objective rational methods, that is, they used a scientific
approach. They gathered all the traditions that they could without
prejudice, while at the same time collecting data about their
transmitters and then reached some conclusions. This work needs to
be developed further but its scientific spirit cannot be doubted.

3) The isnad method has not
proved to be very successful and the results reached by our
classical muhaddithun are not very dependable.

That the isnad method, on
which our great muhaddithun primarily depended, has not produced
sound results is clear from very significant differences in the
various versions of the same ahadith. Previously I illustrated this
with the example of the story of ‘Umar and Sawdah concerning the
hijab. Another example is provided by the traditions where some
versions have only the Book of God as the source of guidance while
other versions mention the Sunnah and/or ahl al-bayt and/or rightly
guided khulafa`. The addition (or, possible but unlikely omission)
of the reference to the Sunnah etc as a source of Islamic guidance
cannot be dismissed lightly. It is a difference of tremendous
importance and it is clear that someone changed the words of the
Holy Prophet.

Here is yet another example
of serious changes in the earlier version:

Bukhari thrice tells us the
following beautiful story:

Yahya bin Qaza‘ah related to us: Ibrahim bin Sa‘d related to us from
his father from ‘Urwah from ‘Aishah who said: The Prophet in his
fatal illness, called his daughter Fatimah and told her a secret
because of which she started to weep. Then he called her and told
her another secret, and she started laughing. When I asked her about
that, she replied, The Prophet told me that he would die in his
fatal illness, and so I wept, but then he secretly told me that from
amongst his family, I would be the first to join him, and so I
laughed".

In
this version the second secret that turns Fatimah’s crying into
laughing is the good news that she will be the first among the
Prophet’s household to follow him (in death), which corresponds to
the fact that she died very soon after his father. But in another
version of the story this has changed as follows:

Musa related to us from Abu ‘Awanah, Firas related to
us from ‘Amir from Masruq (who said): ‘Aishah related
to me: … Fatimah said: “ … And when the Prophet saw me in this
sorrowful state, he confided the second secret to me saying, O
Fatimah! Will you not be pleased that you will be chief of all the
believing women (or chief of the women of this ummah)?”

It is clear that someone had
changed the reason for Fatimah’s laughing. Both ahadith are agreed
upon in that they are found in both Bukhari and Muslim. It is clear
that no category of ahadith, however trusted by some Muslims, was
immune to tahrif of a significant nature. This is not the
case just with a few ahadith. We can find similar differences in
ahadith on almost every subject, even though the ahadith are
supposed to be narrated by unbroken chains of trustworthy
transmitters. We have over the centuries developed a tendency to
pass over such contradictions and pretend that they do not exist or
are not important. But the moment we open our eyes we begin to see
that we are dealing with a rather flawed process of transmission.

My criticism of the isnad method resulted in some readers thinking
that I consider Muwatta to be completely reliable and only reject
traditions in Bukhari and Muslim.
Thus one brother commented:
“If Muwatta is the ultimate criterion for what we do, or do not,
consider acceptable, then we should entirely do away with the rest
of the authentic collection.” But this is the result of a
misunderstanding. I do not consider Muwatta as the ultimate
criterion. The ultimate criterion is the Book of God, the Furqan. I
believe that there are some authentic ahadith that did not find
their way into Muwatta while at the same time there are some
inauthentic traditions that did get included in Muwatta. The
misunderstanding of my position also prompted the same brother to
raise the question: “Imam Malik was born in 93A.H, long after the
prophet had passed away. It cannot be that what he collected is what
he heard from the prophet himself. So he must also have relied on
reports through chains of narration. Now how is that any different
from the issue of isnad that Dr. Shafa'at questions?” My answer is
that isnad method is subject to the same criticism in case of
Muwatta as in case of Bukhari and Muslim except that Imam Bukhari
was born in 194 and Imam Muslim was born in 204, more than hundred
years after the birth of Imam Malik. This is surely significant
from the point of view of a scientific approach to the Hadith. Imam
Malik depends on only one or two narrators to reach a companion
while Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim may need as many as five
narrators to do the same. The possibility of errors in the asanid,
the contents, and attribution of ahadith therefore increase
considerably in case of Bukhari and Muslim. In other words, the
importance of Muwatta arises not because its methods and approach
are infallible or superior but simply because it is much nearer the
time of the Prophet than Bukhari and Muslim.

If some belief or practice
or event is found in the Qur`an and then in Muwatta and then in
Bukhari and/or Muslim a certain continuity is established which
inspires confidence in the authenticity of that
belief/practice/event. But if some belief/practice/event cannot be
established by a clear reference in the Qur`an and is absent from
Muwatta and is first documented by the third-century collections
such as Bukhari or Muslim then this continuity is lost and serious
doubts about the authenticity of the belief/practice/event are
justified. This is precisely the case with the belief in the return
of Jesus.

Sometimes continuity can be
established even if the belief/practice/event is not found in
Muwatta. Thus for example the Muwatta mentions a story of the loss
of Aishah’s necklace during one of the Prophet’s journeys, which was
the occasion for the revelation of the verse about tayammum. But
unlike Muwatta, Bukhari and Muslim mention that in this same journey
the incident of the malicious accusation against umm al-muminin also
took place. In this case, however, we can establish continuity,
since a) the incident is clearly referred to in the Qur`an, although
the relatively unimportant details about when it took place and who
was involved etc are not mentioned in the Qur`an; b) the incident
during the journey is mentioned in Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Sa‘d, of which
the former was a contemporary of Imam Malik and therefore his book
is of a date comparable to that of Muwatta. This continuity means
that we can trust the historicity of the incident and with that
trust proceed to examine the four available versions and try to
reconstruct the historical truth.

In a few cases, the
continuity is established by vast number of witnesses of a
belief/practice/event in every generation. This is the case with
details about the five daily prayers. On the basis of the Qur`an we
can be certain that several prayers a day were prescribed for fixed
times of the day involving adhan, wudu etc. We can also be certain
that the practice continued among Muslims from generation to
generation and consequently the form of the prayers as we have it
today goes back to the Holy Prophet except that in some matters the
Prophet himself did not follow a standard procedure leading to
differences later. Now the belief in Jesus’ return does not possess
such continuity. Almost all the traditions in Bukhari and Muslim
about Jesus’ return are narrated on the authority of Abu Hurayrah.
Only Muslim has a tradition on the authority of Jabir bin ‘Abd
Allah. Thus we cannot say that the tradition was well known in the
time of the sahabah and successors and hence we cannot establish its
continuity.

4) The science of Hadith is
capable of considerable further development.

One brother showed
scepticism about this position by stating that he “does not see how
the present authentic collection can be improved to a very
significant degree”. Without actually plunging into a science the
possibilities of its development cannot be seen and so such
scepticism is understandable. Previously I tried to explain the
situation by alluding to situation with such exact sciences as
physics about which the same brother reacted by saying: “I think
that the analogy is not apt.” This is because the brother completely
missed my point. I was not using physics as an analogy. The point
was that if in such an exact science as physics we find that at one
point a theory is working perfectly well with remarkable exactness
and later find it to be fundamentally flawed, this should be all the
more so in inexact sciences such as the science of Hadith. Here it
should be all the more expected that the results reached by one
generation of scholars are found to be inadequate by a later
generation.

A considerable further
development in the science of Hadith is possible because the data
that we possess in the form of traditions found in various books –
Muwatta, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa‘d, Shafi‘i, Yusuf, Bukhari, Muslim, Abu
Da`ud, Tirmidhi, Nasa`i, Ahmad, Ibn Majah, Bayhaqi, Daraqutni, Ibn
Hibban etc – together with the information about the transmitters of
those traditions, and about early Islamic history have not yet been
subjected fully to a rational analysis. Carrying out such an
analysis by putting sufficient resources, making full use of the
computer and of other disciplines such as anthropology, history
generally, and studies of the laws that govern the formation and
transmission of traditions will certainly lead to some phenomenal
developments.

A prerequisite to the
further development of the science of Hadith is the revival of the
scientific spirit. We must be willing to face the facts and the
conclusions that they suggest. In particular we have to stop closing
our eyes to the discrepancies between various extant versions of the
traditions.

Notes

1Saul
was chosen by God and anointed by Samuel (1 Sam 10:1). Later,
God chose David to be the king and commanded Samuel to anoint
him (1Sam 16:12-13).

2The
priests of Aaron’s line and other priests were anointed (Exodus
29:7, Num 35:25).

3See
1 Kings 19:16, Elisha is anointed as a prophet and Isaiah
61:1-2, where an anonymous person with a prophetic role is
anointed by the Lord.

4There
is not a single saying of Jesus in the gospels that is generally
accepted as authentic by critical scholars and that presents him
as a Messiah.

5N.
A. Dahl has noted that to understand Paul “it is never necessary
to know that ‘Christ’ is a term filled with content and highly
significant. All the statements in the letters make good sense
even to those who only know that Christ is a surname for Jesus”
(quoted from Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul, p. 68). Thus
in the Pauline epistles, Christos is never used as a
general term but always as a name of Jesus (contrast Acts 17:3,
26:23); it is never used as a predicate in a statement like
“Jesus is the Christ” (otherwise Acts 18:5, 28); never a
genitive is added as in “Christ of God.” Paul says
“Christ,” “the Christ,” “Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus.” The
term “the Christ” is not found in the oldest texts of the
epistles (against 1 Cor. 3:11 TR). (Hengel, Between Jesus and
Paul, p.72).

6There
are two passages in the Qur`an in which one can see the idea
that Jesus came in fulfillment of earlier prophecy: 3:45 and
3:81. In the first of these passages Jesus is called “a word
from God” (see also 4:171), which can be interpreted to mean “a
promise from God”, that is, an earlier prophecy from God. But
this interpretation is not certain. The second passage, 3:81,
talks of a covenant of the prophets by which all prophets are
bound to believe in and help when another prophet comes
confirming them. One possible interpretation of this verse is
that earlier prophets prepare in some way for the coming of the
later prophets and this preparation involves prophesying their
coming. But this interpretation is not certain and does not
particularly apply to messianic figures but generally to the
whole series of prophets.

7The
absence of any clear indications for identifying Jesus with a
Messiah in any sense corresponds to a similar absence in Jesus’
own authentic statements, as observed in
note 4.

8In
Qur`an 3:39 the angels give to Zechariah the good news of the
birth of his son Yahya (=John the Baptist) “verifying a word
from God, outstanding in character, very chaste, and a prophet
from among the righteous”. The words “verifying a word from God”
are often understood to mean that John will testify to Jesus who
is called “a word from God” some verses later. But there are
several difficulties with this explanation: a) Verses 3:33-54
form a well-connected passage following a chronological order of
the stories of Mary, John the Baptist, and Jesus. In this
passage “a word from God” is not used in connection with Jesus
until after its use in connection with John. b) If the passage
about John is referring to Jesus why he is not referred to by
his name? Why, for example, is it not said “musaddiqan
bi ‘Isa al-Masih”? In view of these objections a better
interpretation may be that “word from God” means an earlier
promise from God, that is, John will come in fulfillment of
earlier (messianic) prophecy. It is also possible that both
interpretations are intended and that is why “a word of God” is
used instead of Jesus or al-Masih. The two
interpretations are consistent with some earlier Christian
traditions. Thus in the Gospels Jesus is presented as the
Messiah and John the Baptist as his Elijah-type forerunner. This
means that John testifies to Jesus (the first interpretation)
and since Elijah-type forerunner himself is promised in
earlier prophecy, John himself comes in fulfillment of
earlier prophecy (second interpretation). (See, A. Shafaat,
Islam, Christianity, and the State of Israel:As Fulfillment of
Old Testament Prophecl, American Trust Publication, 1989).

9Some
Muslim scholars deduced from this hadith that pigs should be
killed. This deduction is unsound for the following three
reasons: a) The word for pig is in the singular (al-khinzir);
b) The time of Jesus’ return will be a special time and what
takes place during such a time should not become a general rule;
c) there is a vast body of traditions that encourage us to be
nice to all animals including dogs, wolves, snakes etc.

It should also be noted that not all earlier
scholars agreed that the pigs should be killed or that Jesus
will kill pigs because they should be killed. Thus in Muwatta we
have the following tradition:

Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said that Isa
ibn Maryam encountered a pig on the road. He said to it, “Go in
peace.” Somebody asked, “Do you say this to a pig?” Isa said, “I
fear lest I accustom my tongue to evil speech.”